Wallace did fairly well except for his complete ignorance on the economic recovery. What he said as a preamble to the question was pure Fox editorial comment and showed total ignorance of economics. For me, it destroyed his credibility as a moderator.
I think each debating candidate should be required to establish an escrow account with, say, $5 million in it. For each second during which they interrupt the other candidate, or run over their allotted time with an answer, $10,000 goes to the other candidate’s campaign. That might force some better behavior.
I have a couple of comments about that.
First, from everything we know about Putin’s and Russia’s interests and preferences, and everything we know about Trump and his [lack of] ethics, including his exhortations to his followers to get out and “watch” the polling places (i.e.- intimidate voters) all the known possibilities of election fraud appear to be geared to rigging the election for Trump, not against him.
Second, and further to what I said earlier, Trump’s comments are basically the ravings of a madman, specifically a pathologically insecure and hugely egotistical madman. So while there’s nothing wrong in principle with taking an analytical devil’s advocate position, in this case it misses the big picture that Trump’s rantings are just unmitigated lunacy and, moreover, dangerous lunacy. A couple of quotes from a commentary that just appeared on the CBC News site:
Trump has been ginning up suspicions about the electoral system for weeks. That’s what prompted the question in the first place. His claims that the vote will be rigged against him have riled his base while unsettling the very core of his campaign team … Now Trump is winding it up again as though “I will keep you in suspense” isn’t just standard reality TV plot development; it’s a legitimate attitude toward the transfer of power in a democracy …
… Anyone who has been to a Trump rally knows how he can stir the enormous crowds he draws … Now he is telling his people that the polls are rigged against him, the media are rigged against him and the vote on election day will be rigged against him.
At a rally for Pence attended by a few hundred people in Salem, Va. last week, I met a man who told me to remember that everyone in the audience was a gun owner and that if Clinton won the election there would be a civil war.
At an Iowa rally the week before a woman in the audience told Trump’s choice for vice president she feared the election might be stolen and that “If Hillary gets in, I myself I’m ready for a revolution because we can’t have her in.”
Trump's refusal to say he'll accept election results fuel for supporters' agitation: Keith Boag | CBC News.
When Trump inevitably loses, he would find it enormously validating to see his idiot followers revolt, and as far as he’s concerned, the more spectacularly and violently they do it, the better. That he is firing them up to do just that shows how little he thinks of them and of his own country. Trump is, and has always been, only about Trump.
I only watched the first 45 minutes of the first debate live, but I went to bed that night, and before each of the last two, confident that Trump would be worse. And he was. Bad, worse, worst.
Strap in folks, the debates are over the but the worst shit from him is yet to come.
Had some weird symptoms this morning, a strange sensation in the center of my chest. I was concerned, because I am in my late youth, and must take unusual feelings seriously. So I looked it up on one of those online doctor things.
Turns out, that weird feeling is something called “happy”. Lot of that going around, today.
Oh, and thanks, Obama! Do you mind if I call you “Michelle”?
It definitely can be rigged but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Nope, only if Clinton said it. No, the nephew-McCarthyites are “raising concerns” of Putin rigging the US election, but that isn’t undermining a million years of democracy or whatever the absurd claim is.
Right, which is why it is absurdity to suggest a strong government can be brought down by one person.
I hope you skipped the analogies on the SAT.
I have no idea why you are so upset about an obviously true statement.
Prolly.
Trump apparently thinks otherwise. No big deal.
Ok then no biggie. If fraud is impossible it will not happen on Nov 8. Then Trump will be in error if he does not accept it.
I disagree that he has incited violence.
Maybe, but what does the GOP have to do with what we are talking about.
“Bipartisan” does not mean “fair”. We still do not know if this election will be fair because it has not happened.
Ok. And the fairer the elections have become, the more obedient and religious supposed skeptics have become about government.
Yes it was a joke. Why do only famous liberals have a sense of humor?
I haven’t made the claim that it was possible. I claimed that we don’t know if it will be fair. Ask the neo-McCarthyites how Russia plans to do it. I guess only Russians can rig elections.
Me too. One down, one to go.
Another struggle analogy.
That’s an event that has taken place. We can evaluate those claims against the evidence.
Stop undermining our democracy!
Trump certainly did better, more substance, less asides, less rambling, but just as many unsubstantiated claims. All he had to say about the election outcome was something like “If I have evidence that fraud has occurred then I will use any available legal avenues to uncover that fraud.”
Its totally unfair! You guys get Dennis Miller and* Mallard Fillmore*.
All we got is Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Will Rogers, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, John Stewart, Steve Colbert…
Trump surrogates were citing the Bush-Gore 2000 election as a reason for Trump not to say he’d respect the results.
On election night, the networks called Florida for Bush, Gore called Bush and conceded, the networks changed their prediction, Gore called Bush and withdrew his concession.
-
If Gore had not withdrawn his concession AND the results were certified for Gore, would the concession have been binding?
-
After the votes were certified, if Gore had not conceded but the process had gone on with the electoral college and then the senate certifying the results, would it have mattered that he didn’t concede? Assume that he didn’t pursue any other legal remedies but just said “I think I won”.
Or more concisely, other than a nice tradition, does it matter if someone concedes?
Poe’s Law, my friend. Anyway, I laughed.
One person with no influence? No.
One person who holds sway over millions who are virulently opposed to evaluating evidence? Of that I am less certain.
I’m curious how else you interpret repeated references to a Second Amendment solution.
Or just good old-fashioned vowing to defend people in court if they commit assault.
Any statement made by Trump must be taken within the context of his previous statements. It’s very clear he’s been laying the groundwork for violent upheaval ever since he figured out a sizable bloc of his supporters are batshit insane.
When asked for a cite proving rigged elections or which supports your position at all, you provided a movie clip. You’re the joke.
Actually, my suggestion is to reset the clock for the candidate who is being interrupted. So if Hillary is one minute 50 seconds into her two-minute time limit and Donald mutters “wrong, wrong, wrong” Hillary would get that 1:50 again. It could go the other way as well.
You extensively quoted me in your response but noticeable failed to include my request for a cite that the election could be rigged enough to sway a presidential election.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you don’t have any.
Your whole argument that we can’t predict the future is so faulty that my eight-year-old daughter could tear it apart. We all predict the future to a high degree of accuracy in thousands and thousands of decisions we make.
I will not be rich tomorrow.
A young, beautiful woman will proposition me in the next 15 minutes.
The yen will not be trading at 1 yen to the dollar within the next year.
The next election could be rigged and there could be widespread voter fraud sufficient to change the election.
Obviously you can’t comment on the first, but do you accept the third? If not, why not and why is the really different than the forth?
So far on a limited basis of encouraging people to rough up protesters and offered to pay for their legal fees.
Some of his rabid followers are talking of an armed revolt and he is adding this fuel to that fire. It’s highly irresponsible.
As much to do with the discussion as your comment that a candidate can do whatever is legal.
Actually not. We trust journalists and the media to help watch.
Because when the quality of an argument has reached Poe’s Law, we can’t tell?
Put together a scenario where the current checks could be circumvented. That is the only way this argument could hold. Otherwise you could be arguing that aliens will take over.
Listen, buddy, giraffe’s tongues are so long that they can clean their ears with their tongues. I know you think you’re winning this debate, but do you even realize that water boils at a lower temperature at higher elevations? Next time you think you’ve got something insightful to say about this election, consider the fact that I ate cheese toast for breakfast this morning!
Trump is now apparently arguing that Chris Wallace gave Clinton the debate questions in advance.
That Fox News has been in The Democrats’ pockets for so long, who can say? :smack:
While we’re on that subject, I think Wallace did a fine job moderating.
Yes, the election hasn’t happened. But, as even you admit, WillFarnaby, it is unreasonable to believe the election will be rigged. You don’t plan for things that are unreasonable to happen. Nobody says “I don’t know if I’ll be there tomorrow. A pink unicorn might show up.”
The only reason Trump thinks the election could be rigged is his own narcissistic personality disorder that looks to blame anyone else for his own problems. There is absolutely no sign of it, and there is no means proposed that could do it. Russians can’t undermine a system that doesn’t go online and has paper backup if you go electronic.
Trump has also definitely inspired violence. He told his supporters to attack protestors, saying he would foot the bill if they got in legal trouble. If you have to pretend something didn’t happen, then your argument immediately fails.
No other presidential candidate has ever even suggested they wouldn’t accept the results of an election. They’ve demanded recounts where they were appropriate (i.e. the results were close), but they have never even promoted the idea that the system may be rigged. If it’s rigged, then the only solution is violence, and that’s not acceptable. There’s a reason why every presidential candidate has flat out capitulated.
There’s just no need to go all Kelly Ann Conway and and try to come up with some weird, less obvious meaning. Trump is signaling that he won’t accept the results if he loses. He’s flat out said that his losing will mean that the system is rigged. The only saving grace is his mental illness, which makes it where he may not be intentionally riling up his supporters. He may just be that far removed from reality.
Both could be true! It’s clear he has the emotional regulation capacity of a 12 year old boy. I really think this is just a massive game of toy soldiers to him. He’s intentionally stirring shit up but he lacks the maturity to fully understand the consequences.
Also, ‘‘Have you seen Aleppo?’’
Umm… have you?
Right: because a woman couldn’t possibly be able to think on her feet, be actually - you know - prepared for the debate, and have a deep understanding of the issues of the day. Trump is a sad little man.